Letang Is The Truth wrote:i never really had an opinion of it. i think that people show own guns if that is their prerogative. i never had an interest too but now i am very interested to go again and potentially turn it in to a hobby.

Beware, it can get very expensive. My grandfather taught me to shoot a .22 when I was young, but I wasn’t a regular shooter. Then a buddy I met in college took me handgunning, and years and much $$$ later I now have a safe full of the darn things.

I’ve purposely stayed away from shotgunning because I know if I start I couldn’t be able to stop. I mean, if you hit the target right it blows up in mid-air. Boom! That’s freaking awesome. But I know myself, and I know that if I started down that road it wouldn’t be long before I starting thinking that my trap scores would be much better using a $5,000 Krieghoff KX-6 or something similar. Those thoughts lead to the Red Side (of my finances).

Letang Is The Truth wrote:i never really had an opinion of it. i think that people show own guns if that is their prerogative. i never had an interest too but now i am very interested to go again and potentially turn it in to a hobby.

Beware, it can get very expensive. My grandfather taught me to shoot a .22 when I was young, but I wasn’t a regular shooter. Then a buddy I met in college took me handgunning, and years and much $$$ later I now have a safe full of the darn things.

I’ve purposely stayed away from shotgunning because I know if I start I couldn’t be able to stop. I mean, if you hit the target right it blows up in mid-air. Boom! That’s freaking awesome. But I know myself, and I know that if I started down that road it wouldn’t be long before I starting thinking that my trap scores would be much better using a $5,000 Krieghoff KX-6 or something similar. Those thoughts lead to the Red Side (of my finances).

hey, a remington 870 will only run you $300... 12ga target loads are still about $25 for 100 of them, a case of clays is $15. You just gotta do it cheap.

"The New York State Police are suspending the handgun permits of people in the state who are prescribed anti-anxiety medication, according to Jim Tresmond of the Tresmond Law Firm in Hamburg, New York. Tresmond Law specializes in firearm litigation."

If indeed this is true, I can't see this standing up in federal court. It seems to be in violation of mutlitple federal laws and rights. I really need to move from this state to America.

Hahaha the new senate compromise gun bill looks like it was written by the NRA. As far as I can tell, it doesn't do anything except make those pages of paperwork you fill out for a rifle purchase at a store, also mandatory for a gun show... which you had to do at a gun show anyway if you were buying from a licensed dealer. So it doesn't do anything at all really lololol.

I want to see actual bill or amendment text before I make a decision. I’m not happy at all that Toomey is doing this, but I did hear something along the lines of the Manchin/Toomey deal also banning the creation of any federal registry. If their bill, for example, made it a federal crime for anyone working for a federal agency to create or maintain gun records beyond a certain time, then I may be willing to accept the expanded checks as a tradeoff.

AlexPKeaton wrote:Hahaha the new senate compromise gun bill looks like it was written by the NRA. As far as I can tell, it doesn't do anything except make those pages of paperwork you fill out for a rifle purchase at a store, also mandatory for a gun show... which you had to do at a gun show anyway if you were buying from a licensed dealer. So it doesn't do anything at all really lololol.

Not sure if serious... but this closes a massive loophole that criminals use. If this is all it does, then it's good legislation.

I did not see if these background checks from the new law are required to be destroyed within 24 hours as the current law says. Reid's proposed bill had no such provision - which would effectivly be a "who owns a gun" registry if you wanted the data. (I believe this was the main beef the ACLU had with the bill).

I'm wondering if this wonderful new hastily written legislation that will do absolutely nothing to prevent a mass shooter has such a provision as it "tightens" up gun checks that are already there.

If a record is kept of background checks - that is pretty much a registry.

What I think is hilarious re: background checks, was I just heard on the news that the families of Newtown victims were going door-to-door campaigning for stricter background checks. Can someone inform them that the killer did not want to proceed with a background check at Dick's Sporting Goods days before the incident and was therefore denied purchase of the weapon?

Some of the aspects of the deal are intriguing. If “Permits interstate handgun sales from dealers” means that I could go to West Virginia and buy a handgun from Cabela’s without having to get it shipped back to Pennsylvania, then I’m all for that. I also like the idea that a valid concealed-permit would let one skip the check. Back in the day, it used to be the case in PA that if you had a permit, the waiting period for purchases didn’t apply to you. Then again, as the saying goes, the Devil’s in the details. I want to see the actual bill language.

In SC it i already illegal for a FFL to sell or transfer a firearm without doing a background check and form 4473 unless you have a CWP because we already have a substantial check done. If I have my CWP it is proof I would pass a check so I get to skip it.

If I want to do a private sale the person must also be a SC resident and I need to have every belief they would otherwise pass a background check. If I know they can't buy a gun themselves but I sell one to them anyways I am committing a crime.

So I'm not sure how other states deal with these issues but what they are proposing is already the law here in SC. I would love for them to allow interstate purchases, being a SC resident but so close to Charlotte makes gun shows annoying. But NC requires purchase permits for handguns, not sure how that will mesh with varying state laws.

AlexPKeaton wrote:Hahaha the new senate compromise gun bill looks like it was written by the NRA. As far as I can tell, it doesn't do anything except make those pages of paperwork you fill out for a rifle purchase at a store, also mandatory for a gun show... which you had to do at a gun show anyway if you were buying from a licensed dealer. So it doesn't do anything at all really lololol.

It actually does close the so-called private-party 'loophole' by requiring background checks for all gun show purchases, exempting temporary and inter-familial transfers. In fact, this proposed legislation would require gun show background checks be given priority over in-store purchases.

DelPen wrote:If I want to do a private sale the person must also be a SC resident and I need to have every belief they would otherwise pass a background check. If I know they can't buy a gun themselves but I sell one to them anyways I am committing a crime.

Here in Pennsylvania there is no need for checks on private sales of long guns, but we’ve had “universal” checks on handgun transfers since at least 1997. It certainly hasn’t stopped criminals from obtaining pistols or committing crimes with them.

AlexPKeaton wrote:Hahaha the new senate compromise gun bill looks like it was written by the NRA. As far as I can tell, it doesn't do anything except make those pages of paperwork you fill out for a rifle purchase at a store, also mandatory for a gun show... which you had to do at a gun show anyway if you were buying from a licensed dealer. So it doesn't do anything at all really lololol.

It actually does close the so-called private-party 'loophole' by requiring background checks for all gun show purchases, exempting temporary and inter-familial transfers. In fact, this proposed legislation would require gun show background checks be given priority over in-store purchases.

I'm reading that it doesn't apply to private sales at all, FFL holders currently run checks at gun shows, private sellers don't, not sure this will change it. They will just meet at a Walmart parking lot a few miles away and make their sales instead of actually at the gun shows if this will even apply to them.

But if closing this mythical gun show loophole makes people feel better then sure, create legislation that doesn't really solve anything.

I also wonder what they mean by “internet sales.” Pretty much every gun sold through places like gunbroker.com must first be shipped to a FFL before transferred to the buyer, and a check is done at the time. It’s already illegal under federal law to sell a handgun across state lines without an FFL being involved. If I see a classified ad for a rifle on craigslist, does that mean that I must have the deal run through an FFL just because I saw the ad online? What would be the difference between that and a classified ad in the Post-Gazette?

The big issue I see, from a Constitutional perspective, is not the restriction on gun purchases. But rather that they are trying to impose background checks on all intra-state firearm transactions. Not sure the Commerce Clause provides for that authority.

DelPen wrote:

tifosi77 wrote:

AlexPKeaton wrote:Hahaha the new senate compromise gun bill looks like it was written by the NRA. As far as I can tell, it doesn't do anything except make those pages of paperwork you fill out for a rifle purchase at a store, also mandatory for a gun show... which you had to do at a gun show anyway if you were buying from a licensed dealer. So it doesn't do anything at all really lololol.

It actually does close the so-called private-party 'loophole' by requiring background checks for all gun show purchases, exempting temporary and inter-familial transfers. In fact, this proposed legislation would require gun show background checks be given priority over in-store purchases.

I'm reading that it doesn't apply to private sales at all, FFL holders currently run checks at gun shows, private sellers don't, not sure this will change it. They will just meet at a Walmart parking lot a few miles away and make their sales instead of actually at the gun shows if this will even apply to them.

But if closing this mythical gun show loophole makes people feel better then sure, create legislation that doesn't really solve anything.

Manchin's statement today at the presser: " Under current law, if you buy a gun at a gun show from a licensed dealer, you have to undergo a background check by that dealer. But you can go to a non-dealer table at the gun show, or into the parking lot, and buy a gun without a background check. Our bill ensures that anyone buying a gun at a gun show has to undergo a background check by a licensed dealer."

Haven't found the actual text of the legislation.

Shyster wrote:I also wonder what they mean by “internet sales.” Pretty much every gun sold through places like gunbroker.com must first be shipped to a FFL before transferred to the buyer, and a check is done at the time. It’s already illegal under federal law to sell a handgun across state lines without an FFL being involved. If I see a classified ad for a rifle on craigslist, does that mean that I must have the deal run through an FFL just because I saw the ad online? What would be the difference between that and a classified ad in the Post-Gazette?

I'm taking it to mean the medium in which the exchange of money takes place. And they're using overly broad language like "includes advertising" as a backdoor into requiring NICS on as many types of commercial venues as possible.

tifosi77 wrote:Manchin's statement today at the presser: " Under current law, if you buy a gun at a gun show from a licensed dealer, you have to undergo a background check by that dealer. But you can go to a non-dealer table at the gun show, or into the parking lot, and buy a gun without a background check. Our bill ensures that anyone buying a gun at a gun show has to undergo a background check by a licensed dealer."

The obvious question is: How far away do you need to be before you’re no longer “at” the gun show. What if we set an appointment to meet at the seller’s house the next day? What if I hand out flyers at the show detailing the guns I want to sell and invite prospective purchasers to meet me at a certain location three days later? What if I walk around holding a gun and wearing a sign with my phone number on it? At no point do I say it’s for sale, but some people might—just might—call my number later on to make that inquiry. Is that a sale at a gun show?

tifosi77 wrote:Manchin's statement today at the presser: " Under current law, if you buy a gun at a gun show from a licensed dealer, you have to undergo a background check by that dealer. But you can go to a non-dealer table at the gun show, or into the parking lot, and buy a gun without a background check. Our bill ensures that anyone buying a gun at a gun show has to undergo a background check by a licensed dealer."

The obvious question is: How far away do you need to be before you’re no longer “at” the gun show. What if we set an appointment to meet at the seller’s house the next day? What if I hand out flyers at the show detailing the guns I want to sell and invite prospective purchasers to meet me at a certain location three days later? What if I walk around holding a gun and wearing a sign with my phone number on it? At no point do I say it’s for sale, but some people might—just might—call my number later on to make that inquiry. Is that a sale at a gun show?

I'd say you'd have a hard time convincing me that those are anything other than gun show sales in all but name. But I don't know if the wording of the final law (should it come to pass) would be sufficient in declaring such activity as such.

To me your hypotheticals seem like what my friends in the motor racing community refer to as "exploiting the regulations".... in other words, using the specific wording of a regulation to achieve the very thing the regulation is meant to prohibit, or a very close approximation. Obviously, the intent of a regulation isn't really enforceable; only the letter of the law matters. But for those reasons I have no problem with calling people who do that 'cheaters', even tho they are fully within the bounds of the wording of the rules. They know they are doing something that the rulemakers don't want them doing.

tifosi77 wrote:To me your hypotheticals seem like what my friends in the motor racing community refer to as "exploiting the regulations".... in other words, using the specific wording of a regulation to achieve the very thing the regulation is meant to prohibit, or a very close approximation. Obviously, the intent of a regulation isn't really enforceable; only the letter of the law matters. But for those reasons I have no problem with calling people who do that 'cheaters', even tho they are fully within the bounds of the wording of the rules. They know they are doing something that the rulemakers don't want them doing.

Aren’t you a paralegal? Figuring out how to do something anyway that the rulemakers don’t want to be done is a big chunk of what the legal community does (especially tax and estates-and-trusts lawyers). Another big chunk of work is defending the people who went ahead and still did what the rulemakers didn’t want to be done.

Edit: And of course we are talking about laws that will be criminal in character. Criminal laws are generally construed against the government with any doubts resolved in favor of the defendant. So if the law doesn’t clearly say it’s illegal, then it shouldn’t be illegal.

The saddest thing about all these gun laws, and the sad little politicians peddling them... the rallying cry is always about the victims of past crimes for the reason these laws should be passed. This overlooks the fact that is already illegal to murder someone, child, adult, or otherwise. Why does someone think it will help to make it *more* illegal to kill someone? They would be ok with breaking one or two laws, but if it means breaking eight laws certainly they will reconsider?

MO state police sent their entire CCW list to the feds violating MO law. No official request was ever received, only explanation was that the list was being bumped up against some mental health list, which should also be a violation of HIPA, right?

Then there was the man in NY who had his permits revoked and was ordered to surrender his guns because he had purchases of Zoloft in his medical records. Now they claim it was a "mistake".